| Overplaying the Race Card The race card gets played an awful lot these days, mostly in criticism of impartial treatment towards blacks. John Shelby Spong, a New Jersey Episcopal bishop, says that even though slavery ended over a century ago, “we still have the heritage of that. And we have slavery's bastard step-child, segregation, that has been effective in this country and is still effective.” Segregation, eh? Let’s talk about segregation. Halle Berry and Denzel Washington were the big winners on Oscar night 2002. Doesn’t sound like segregation to me… but it’s interesting that the “Black Oscars” were held the night before. Isn’t that segregation? What about the “Black Grammys”? Those are held every year too. The “Black Miss America Pageant”? I’m seeing a pattern here. Chicago recently held a “Black Woman’s Expo.” So I guess I agree, segregation is alive and well in this country. TV shows are often the target of racial attacks. “Black sitcoms” are often criticized by activist groups for portraying stereotypes of poor, undereducated blacks. Yet, when shows like “The Cosby Show” feature affluent black families, they’re criticized for ignoring the plight of the oppressed black race. Shows like “Friends” and “Seinfeld” are criticized for not having black characters. Which of Jerry Seinfeld’s co-stars should have been portrayed by a black actor? The lazy, morally-depraved, often-unemployed George? The clumsy, hair-brained, terminally-unemployed moocher Kramer? Or the selfish, morally-depraved, sexually promiscuous Elaine? A black actor in any of those would have drawn harsh criticism. Is it not possible to simply view a role apart from the color of the character? Why must every black actor’s portrayal of a role always make a statement about race? Such thinking limits them to roles which exemplify "positive" portrayals. Halle Berry’s Oscar for “Monster’s Ball” was supposed to open the door for black actors to be offered wider ranges of roles. Yet that role, as a prostitute, was turned down by several other black actresses who felt the role was demeaning to blacks, and Berry was criticized by them for accepting it. So, who is it that really needs to be more open-minded and accepting? It’s time we realize that affirmative action programs are ill-conceived. There is a world of difference between equal opportunity and equal results. Equal opportunity is something worthy of being fought for. Demanding equal results is a cop-out. And the truth of the matter is, the lack of equal results does not prove the lack of equal opportunity. The events of 9/11 were supposed to (and should have) helped bring about a new togetherness among races, a new unity among Americans. It if did, it didn’t last long. A tribute statue designed after the famous photograph of three NY firefighters planting a flag was criticized for having all three firefighters being white, even though it matched the photo. It couldn’t be viewed as three Americans. It had to become a race issue, and a debate ensued on whether at least one of the firefighters should have been made black (one must also wonder about every other race in America and why they didn’t need to be represented?) So much for 9/11 helping us to become color blind. And I wonder, if the three firefighters all happened to be black, would there be debate about changing one or more to be white? If someone had proposed that, I wonder what the response would have been? I also wonder why the issue of all three being men, and none being women, also wasn’t raised. The simple fact is, the statue should exactly represent the photograph, if that’s what it’s modeled after. Another popular issue with civil rights extremists is black reparations. And there are a number of lawsuits being heard today for reparations. Now, it is certainly true that blacks were at a disadvantage when they were brought to this country as slaves. Do the slave owners from their homeland who sold them owe any reparations? And, didn’t whites immigrate here because they were at a disadvantage in their home country? There were no reparations for them. They had to make it on their own, from scratch, in a new country. They chose the United States because it offered opportunity. That same opportunity is there now, for blacks and everyone. Do some white people benefit today from the wealth of their ancestors? Without question. But their ancestors worked hard and took risks to improve their lives, and the lives of their descendents. They didn’t improve their situations by demanding reparations from their home country, or by asking for handouts over here. The solution is to improve the situation for your offspring, and for them to do so for their offspring, and so on. But 70% of blacks today are born out of wedlock. How will reparations help that? And we must ask, is anything owed to the Union soldiers who died fighting for the freedom of others from slavery? How many white people are worse off today because their ancestors suffered casualties or died in the Civil War? Perhaps their descendants are owed reparations from descendents of people they freed. Those who constantly use the race card as a crutch will never get themselves up and running. Liberal leaders love to take up the black cause, because they can easily twist the issue into a “we’ll take care of you” form of propaganda. They’d rather people not realize they’d be far better off if they could learn to take care of themselves. Civil rights extremists misconstrue (often intentionally) the correlation between race and class. Ask yourself this question: Given the fact that you want to have the best possible chance to succeed in America, would you rather be born black into a wealthy family, or be born white into poverty? (Next) |
| Agenda: |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |